Levi Bellfield didn’t even turn up in court the next day. The judge dryly observed to the defence team, ‘Your client has indicated that he does not wish to take part in the proceedings.’ As in his first trial, Bellfield did not have the courage to appear in front of the judge who was to sentence him.
An avalanche of reports about Bellfield and his violent past – especially in relation to women – had come out the previous night and in that morning’s papers. As a result, it was decided that it would be unrealistic for the jury to proceed with its deliberations over Rachel Cowles and they were discharged. But one question lingered on that did not concern Rachel. It was simply this – who had been on trial at the Old Bailey, Levi Bellfield or the Dowlers?
Bob and Sally Dowler had been subjected to an unremitting series of questions by Jeffrey Samuels QC on Bellfield’s behalf. Mr Dowler was asked about the pornography and bondage gear hidden in the house while Sally was asked about favouring one child over the other. There were suggestions that Milly had problems far greater than normal teenage growing pains. The Dowlers were soon to have their say, but the trial judge was first to speak of the questioning they underwent.
Mr Justice Wilkie, sentencing Bellfield in his absence, said that the 2008 convictions marked Bellfield out ‘as a cruel and pitiless killer. To this is added the fact that, as on another occasion at this court, he has not had the courage to come into court to face his victims and receive his sentence. He subjected Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, to what must have been a terrifying ordeal for no reason other than she was at the wrong place at the wrong time and became a target of the unreasoning hatred that was driving him. He robbed her of her promising life. He robbed her family and friends of the joy of seeing her grow up, like her school friends who have given evidence in this court, into a self-confident, articulate and admirable young woman. He treated her in death with total disrespect, depositing her naked body without even a semblance of a burial, in a wood far away from her home, vulnerable to all the forces of nature. Thereby, as he clearly intended, causing her family the appalling anguish for many months of not knowing what had become of her.
‘But most cruel of all, in an attempt to divert responsibility from himself, he instructed his lawyers in this trial to expose to the world her most private, adolescent thoughts, secrets and worries and sought to hint that she was a dark, unhappy and troubled person, a proposition which the jury has rejected and which flew in the face of the evidence from her family and many friends. For those of us in court who have been privileged to get to know about her, it is clear that she was a funny, sparky, enthusiastic teenager fully exploring her developing emotional life, just as any intelligent person of her age might. He must have known that. However skilfully and sensitively it was done – and it was – that process could do no other than hugely increase the anguish of her family, particularly her mother Sally Dowler, in ways which were made dramatically clear to all in court. But he has failed in what he intended. Milly’s memory will survive and be cherished long after he is forgotten. The only sentence I can pass for the offence of murder is one of life imprisonment and I do.’
Sentencing him to a whole-life term, the judge added, ‘I have regard to the aggravating factors identified at that time [of the murder], namely that this was the killing of a child, that he has a substantial record of serious violence and that he engaged in a macabre attempt to conceal her body. I am glad to see that the family of Milly Dowler are in court. My next words are directed to them. No one who has been in court can have been in any doubt that the Dowler family has suffered indescribable agonies, during almost a decade, over the loss of their beloved daughter Milly, for which all our hearts go out to them. In an important sense, this agony may be thought to have culminated in this trial. I appreciate that the trial process has been excruciating for them by the reason of the issues the defendant instructed his lawyers to raise in his defence. I have already commented on that in sentencing him.
‘I understand that they feel let down by the trial process in that respect. Unfortunately, given the nature of the defence, it was unavoidable that these issues be pursued in court. All that I can do is hope that they may in time come to terms with that and that the outcome of the trial may in some small way contribute to their grieving process and assist them in coming to a semblance of closure.’
Outside the Old Bailey, the Dowlers gathered together. They were finally able to express their views over their ordeal. They supported each other, both mentally and physically, as they revealed their feelings in words that merit repeating in full: Sally Dowler said, ‘We are relieved to have this verdict returned and would like to thank the jury for their decision. At last the man responsible for the cruel murder of our darling daughter so many years ago has been found guilty. However, for us, the trial has been an awful experience. We have felt that our family, who have already suffered so much, has been on trial as much as Bellfield. We have had to hear Milly’s name defamed in court. She has been portrayed as an unhappy, depressed young girl. Ordinary details that any mother would recognise have been magnified into major problems. The Milly we knew was a happy, vivacious, fun-loving girl. Our family life has been scrutinised and laid open for everyone to inspect and comment upon. We have had to lose our right to privacy and sit through day after harrowing day of the trial in order to get a man convicted of a brutal murder.
‘To actually see that man in court, a man capable of such a vile and inhuman crime, has been grotesque and distressing for us. The length the system goes to protect his human rights seems so unfair compared to what we as a family have had to endure. I hope whilst he is in prison he is treated with the same brutality he dealt out to his victims and that his life is a living hell. For a mother to bury her child in any circumstances is truly agonising but to bury your child when you know she died in such an appalling way is unutterably awful. The pain and grief, the damage he has done to our family and friends, will never go away. We have just had to learn to live alongside it. A day does not pass when we do not think of her and the life that she might have had.’ She thanked police family liaison officers for their ‘incredible support’, adding, ‘After DCI Maria Woodall took charge of the investigation we at last felt that progress was being made and Maria made every attempt to correct some of the mistakes of her predecessors. For this we are very grateful.’
Gemma too was forthright in her views: ‘The past few months have been some of the toughest times for the whole family. I can honestly say that the day my mother and father were questioned by the defence QC was the worst day of my life. It is hard to believe but it was worse than when I heard the news that the remains were that of my sister Milly. The way my parents were questioned can only be described as mental torture. Have they not suffered enough? I will remember that day for the rest of my life. Seeing my mum collapse in court and having to be carried out by my father and our family liaison officer. I was waiting to give evidence, so couldn’t even comfort my own mother. The way they can portray my lovely sister as a depressed teenager has shocked me terribly – the worst part being that she isn’t here to defend herself. To have to listen to that was emotionally scarring. The scales seem to be tipped so much towards the defendant rather than us, the family who have suffered an almighty loss. It feels like we are the criminals and our family has been on trial.’
Gemma redressed the balance by going on to pay her own tribute to Milly. ‘She was the best sister anyone could ask for. She was a shoulder for me to cry on, a fashion guru, a person who could make you laugh even when you felt sad and she would light up a room as soon as she entered. She really was a star, and on dark nights I look out at the sky and there almost seems to be a star shining brighter than the rest. I am sure this is Milly watching over me. When this all happened, nine years ago, I was only 16. I had no other choice but to grow up. I feel I missed out on some wonderful teenage years. I waved goodbye to the happy family we were and I realised life would never be the same again. The past nine years have tested our relationship as a family; there have been extremely bad days but we still manage some good days. Sadly, it is those good days when we realise that there is somebody missing and then I will spend the next day feeling guilty for enjoying myself.
‘It had taken me a long time to get to some kind of normal life for a 25-year-old but I felt I was getting there. However, now I feel like all my hard work has been undone. I have not been able to go to work for the past couple of weeks as it takes far too much concentration – which I lack as I am under so much stress. I often asked. “Why? Why us, why our family and, most of all, why Milly?” I now know the answer and that is simply Milly was in the wrong place at the wrong time and there is nothing I can do to change that. With regard to the question of justice, in my eyes justice is an eye for an eye. You brutally murder someone then you pay the ultimate price … a life for a life. So in my eyes, no real justice has been done. He took away my beautiful sister and he will now spend the rest of his time living off of taxpayers’ money!’
And Bob Dowler, whose lifestyle had been put under microscopic analysis in the witness box, said, ‘We are pleased that a guilty verdict has been delivered by the jury and that Levi Bellfield has been convicted of the murder of our daughter. However, we do not see this as true justice for Milly, merely a criminal conviction. My family has had to pay too high a price for this conviction. The pain and agony that we have endured as a family since 21 March 2002 has been compounded by the devastating effects of this trial. Prior to this trial, my family and I had only an ordinary person’s understanding of the legal process. However, during the past seven weeks, our eyes have been well and truly opened. The trial has been a truly mentally scarring experience on an unimaginable scale – you would have to have been there to truly understand. Things that you would not believe could ever happen did in fact happen. During the past nine years, there have been many occasions when the police investigation has left us in despair. The trial has been a truly horrifying ordeal for my family. We have had to relive all the emotions and thoughts of nine years ago when Milly first went missing and was then found murdered. During our questioning, my wife and I both felt as if we were on trial. The questioning of my wife was particularly cruel and inhuman, resulting in her collapse after leaving the stand. We despair of a justice system that is so loaded in favour of the perpetrator of the crime. It has often appeared almost incidental that this is a trial concerning the murder of our daughter.
‘We would like to pay tribute to all the witnesses who so courageously gave evidence for the prosecution. This is in stark contrast to the cowardly behaviour of Levi Bellfield who was able to decline to give evidence and chose instead to hide behind his defence QC – to challenge the testimony of every witness. Where is the fairness in a system which allows such behaviour? The defence inferences about myself and my wife were hugely distressing. And yet again Bellfield has been spineless and gutless for not attending his sentencing today. Thank goodness that we have so many close and wider family members and friends who have supported us through the past nine years. Saturday, 25 June would have been Milly’s 23rd birthday and as always we will remember the happy, fun-loving and talented girl that she was – but who was never allowed to fulfil her potential. This is a gap in our lives that can never be filled. We would ask now to be left alone to try and put the pieces of our life back together and try and look to the future.’
Milly’s uncle, Brian Gilbertson, said, ‘Whilst I feel some relief about the verdict today, which is tremendous news, there is so much anguish about what went on in that court and the pain that it put the family through. It was so harrowing and we felt as a family at times that we were on trial. We’re just a normal family. We were and then our niece, or Sally’s daughter, has been taken away from her by Bellfield – and there we were in court trying to do our best, answering to a jury exactly what went on. Bellfield decided not to give evidence and to instruct his barrister to question, it seemed, the lifestyle and everything we said, whether it was accurate and true and it made us feel as though we were on trial.’
The agonised words of the family started a heated debate in the media about the way victims and witnesses were treated in such emotive court cases. Over the next few days, the justice system as a whole came under intense scrutiny. There was immediate and widespread support for the Dowlers. The Victims’ Commissioner Louise Casey said that the family’s private lives were torn to shreds during the trial. ‘No one in this country can think what happened to them in that courtroom was right,’ said Casey, the government-appointed advocate for victims and witnesses. She said that the Lord Chief Justice should issue guidance to judges to ensure that they receive humane treatment in the witness box. She added that the Dowler experience should ‘shine a light’ on the way witnesses and victims are treated by the criminal justice system. ‘Sadly, it’s not an isolated case. I have met many families of murdered loved ones who have told me that the process has been almost as traumatic as the death itself.
‘They have endured being cross-examined about the most intimate aspects of their family and private life. On top of this, they would have known that the world would read about it the next day. I am not saying that when someone is charged with a serious crime they are not entitled to a strong defence that tests the evidence in front of a jury. That is absolutely their right. But at the same time that the rich and famous obtain court orders to prevent reporting of their extramarital affairs, surely it is not too much to ask that a family who have had their lives torn apart by a murder be afforded a little privacy too? That a judge might take into account that, alongside the list of rights the defendant is granted, the family might have some rights too?’ She said that the families of victims ‘were not wealthy … I do sometimes wonder whether, if they were wealthy, would we treat them in the same way?’
Javed Khan, chief executive of Victim Support, said, ‘The Dowlers were dragged through a court case to the point where they felt they were interrogated like criminals. They were made to feel like they were guilty of something. And that is wrong. The Crown Prosecution Service has a responsibility to step in and stop the defence barrister. It should be prepared to challenge evidence if it is damaging witnesses unnecessarily. And if it feels it does not have enough power then it must be given that power by Parliament. It looks like the defence’s only line of questioning was to tear the family apart. It tried to prove that Milly was depressed and unhappy and awkward truths were forced out of her parents and sister – things that should have remained private. I’m not surprised they are upset but, unfortunately, it’s a pattern being repeated every day in our courts. Defence lawyers are free to dig into the reputation of a family and make their lives a misery.’
The Chief Constable of Surrey, Mark Rowley, expressed his own views in The Times the day after sentence was passed. ‘Sadly, her [Milly’s] family now regrets supporting the prosecution and feel they have simply been pawns in a legal game. I have overseen the investigation since 2006. Having witnessed the impact of the trial on the family, I, along with the investigative team, am upset and embarrassed by how the justice system has treated them. I want to ask a simple question: rather than leaving victims and their families publicly “vilified and humiliated”, can’t we produce a court system in which the dignity, care and sensitivity towards them is given the same priority as a fair trial for the defendant?
‘Milly’s father was cross-examined on his personal life and both parents were examined on the contents of Milly’s diary in a manner implying they were poor parents and that she had been unhappy. None of us can imagine how awful that must have felt but the obvious trauma is unlikely to heal for a very long time. Even some crime reporters, a hardened group, shed tears at the family’s treatment … The family’s experience was so exceptionally traumatic that they now regret supporting the prosecution of Bellfield. While it is, of course, in the public interest to draw a line under an unsolved murder, I understand why they feel that way. As a chief constable, that is something I never imagined myself saying. I am left wondering why a better balance cannot be found, enabling the proper testing of witnesses without destroying them in public.’
The chairman of the Bar Council, Mr Peter Lodder QC, had differing views. Also writing in The Times, he said, ‘There is understandable revulsion at the appalling, inhuman and murderous behaviour of Levi Bellfield. He did not acknowledge his guilt. He ran a defence that distressed his victim’s family. A convicted serial killer, he even refused to attend court for his sentence. Many now liken him to an animal. In doing so, they have the moral authority that comes from knowing that he was properly represented and fairly tried, by a jury. However, that is not a licence to shoot the messenger. The case against Bellfield was not strong. It rested on the hypothesis that Milly Dowler disappeared outside his home and that this was no coincidence. But there was information that caused the police, initially, to be suspicious of Milly’s father. It was cross-examination founded upon this information that distressed the Dowler family. Mark Rowley, the chief constable of Surrey, must be aware of the importance of testing in court the points that his police force’s investigation raised.
‘Bellfield’s defence asserted that it was too easy to convict him because of his record. His instructions were to show that there were other reasons why Milly might have disappeared, as the police themselves had originally suspected. An experienced judge decided that investigation of this evidence was relevant and legitimate. The jury heard that evidence, considered it and rejected it. Justice was done.
‘Jeffrey Samuels, QC, who represented Bellfield at his trial, acted in the appeal and retrial for Barry George, a man who had an obsession for celebrities and previous convictions for sexual offending. Initially convicted of the murder of Jill Dando, George was acquitted in the retrial in 2008. In that case, the media approved of the outcome. But for doing his job on behalf of Bellfield, Mr Samuels has been pilloried and his young family have suffered death threats and abuse. If a British citizen was charged with a criminal offence abroad and his lawyer was vilified for representing him, we would be outraged.
‘Barristers are not permitted to turn away a case because the crime is a horrible one or because the barrister does not like the look of it. The “cab rank” rule ensures that we take the rough with the smooth. All are entitled to a proper defence and, under our justice system, up to now they have been guaranteed a capable and suitably experienced advocate to conduct it. It is all too easy to dismiss, with hindsight, the presumption of innocence that forms the bedrock of our system. Whoever the defendant, however appalling the crime, the trial process, supervised by a judge, is a strength of our system of justice.’
Roger Coe-Salazar, the CPS chief crown prosecutor in the south east, said, ‘We carry our role towards victims and witnesses at the heart of what we do and we know from experience that the trial process can be a highly traumatic experience for witnesses and loved ones. The adversarial nature of our criminal trial system in this country is designed to test the evidence given by witnesses, be they for the prosecution or defence, so as to ensure safe conviction and acquittal of the innocent. We must recognise that there are some aspects of the trial, in particular in cross-examination, which no amount of general foresight can ever prepare someone for.’
The CPS was legally required to disclose to the defence evidence obtained during the initial police investigation and ‘even in such emotive moments we cannot lose sight of a fundamental principle within our legal system that a defendant should be able to advance his defence before a jury. Once we became aware of the actual nature of the defence that was going to be put forward and the likely evidence that would be advanced to support the defence theory we applied for reporting restrictions on the cross-examination. The judge, in balancing the representations of the prosecution with the interests of open justice, refused the prosecution’s application. During the course of Sally Dowler’s cross-examination the prosecution did object to questioning by the defence wherever we legitimately could. After witnessing the distress the experience caused Mrs Dowler we decided not to call Milly’s sister Gemma to give evidence. It is a testament to the Dowler family’s fortitude that they supported the prosecution of Levi Bellfield for the abominable crime he committed. I know they feel today that the jury trial process has let them down, but I hope that in the future the pain and anguish they are presently feeling will be somewhat diluted as a result of the convictions secured today.’
Marsha McDonnell’s uncle, Shane, commented on the issue of the cross-examination. ‘As much as we respect the absolute need for a defence action to be as strong as possible, we would question the manner in which this particular case was handled by Jeffrey Samuels for Carter Moore Solicitors. Not only were they dealing with a convicted murderer but a man with a very clear proven history of manipulation, hatred, lies and deceit, a man known to have no remorse whatsoever and a man who is known to relish bringing more pain to the families of his victims wherever possible.’
Jeremy Moore was managing partner of Carter Moore and head of the serious and organised crime team. He said it was the ‘cornerstone of our justice system that every defendant, however unpalatable, has the right to have his defence put – and to a fair trial. In order to ensure a fair trial, it is the duty of defence lawyers to test the prosecution case by the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses along relevant lines of questioning. In this particular case, material was disclosed to the defence which, while being of a sensitive nature, was highly relevant to some of the issues in the trial and it became necessary and appropriate to put these matters to certain prosecution witnesses. These matters were put as economically as possible and in no way gratuitously and, had either the prosecution or learned judge considered any such questioning to be irrelevant or inappropriate, it would not have been allowed.’